What does the new Super Charger limit mean?

What does the new Super Charger limit mean?

What does reducing the free yearly Super Charger allowance mean in the long run? Does it mean slower or the end of super charger expansion? After all, why do we need more super chargers if we'll be driving less? Loss of the millennial market share? No more 30 somethings buying S60s. Will Elon introduce a lifetime Super Charger fee? Will it cost 5K, 10K, 15K? What is a lifetime of eGas estimated to be? Will Tesla stock plummet like Netflix and rise again? But Netflix rebounded because there was no cheaper comparable market alternative. Can the same be said of Tesla?

I'm sure that the bean counters at Tesla thought long and hard about the repercussions of such a move. And they are convinced that this gamble will somehow put Tesla in a stronger market position.


SamO | 7 novembre 2016

Self driving capabilities and Tesla Network explain the changes. When a car can drive itself 50,000 miles per year, something has to change.

jordanrichard | 7 novembre 2016

You are getting your facts wrong. There is no present "free yearly Supercharger allowance", to be as you stated "reduced". No this does not mean the expansion is slowing, though at some point it will have to. As the major routes get properly set up, there naturally will become fewer and fewer places to set up a SC site.

martin | 7 novembre 2016

I think it will mean faster expansion as it will generate more revenue.
Tesls is really growing up.
I wish they would charge per kWh as that model would be the most honest but apparently that would make Zesla a utility in the US of A. How stupid...

martin | 7 novembre 2016

Zesla -> Tesla

cquail | 7 novembre 2016

Does Tesla build their own Superchargers? If another company supplies them, can I purchase one or more and place it where I want? I realize they are expensive.

Haggy | 7 novembre 2016

Tesla didn't say they won't offer supercharging for life as a package. If they do, this effectively becomes a price increase. It might be a modest one, or the price could be back to the $2500 it was originally. We won't know until it's announced.

It's not clear what this will do but it may discourage local charging when it would be cheaper to hire an electrician and charge from home. That would be a positive as far as I'm concerned.

negarholger | 7 novembre 2016

"Does Tesla build their own Superchargers?"

Yes. Tesla uses 12 of the previous 10 kW car chargers in parallel in the SC box feeding 2 stalls... using the same electronics as in the cars makes the SC box very cost efficient to build.

negarholger | 7 novembre 2016

"can I purchase one" - probably... there are several known "private" SC e.g. the on near Moscow (with both US and EU connectors), one in Sweden (limited to 60 kW due to the supply),...

bp | 7 novembre 2016

There are other ways to discourage local charging than charging everyone for using the SC network (after the first 1000 miles).

This is a price increase, since Tesla had already bundled in the cost of the supercharger hardware, fractional cost of the SC network, and anticipated electricity cost into the purchase price of every car equipment with SC hardware.

Tropopause | 7 novembre 2016

"We will release the details of the program later this year,..."

Next month is December. We'll know soon. And we're always way off base from what Elon actually announces (except PD).

jordanrichard | 8 novembre 2016

cquail, if you are looking to put one at your house, forget about it. The power requirements for a Supercharger exceed residential power and would require special permits, if your town is willing to grant it.

High Plains Drifter | 8 novembre 2016

Could this be Elon's next business venture... eGas Service stations? Will these new SSs be open to service brands other than Tesla?

KP in NPT | 8 novembre 2016

@High Plains that's what I'm thinking...And yes could be open to all. Fits in with the Tesla Energy thing....

mrspaghetti | 8 novembre 2016

"There are other ways to discourage local charging than charging everyone for using the SC network (after the first 1000 miles)."

But none as simple and effective.

cquail | 8 novembre 2016

I do not need Supercharging at home, but on the routes traveled frequently. So if I am reading the above conversation correctly, I can buy used or junked Teslas, take the the charging equipment from them, put up a structure with a Tesla solar roof and as many Powerwall Twos as I need and have my own Supercharging station. I suppose I can hire someone from the Tesla Supercharger team to moonlight and put it all together.

What's this going to cost so I can enlist all on the forum to help fund it?

MountainVoyageur | 8 novembre 2016

It seems to me that there are two issues: (1) providing local service while avoiding local abuse and (2) making the Supercharger system, including its expansion, financially self-supporting.

(1) Local charging -- charge a fair rate with no free allowance. The rate needs to be high enough for local use to be financially self-supporting. That would allow those who cannot install home charging to still use the superchargers; there is no reason why their use should be free while others have to pay to install charging and then pay for the electricity they use. Done right, this would also remove the economic incentive for abuse by those who could (and therefore should) be recharging at home but instead use local superchargers just to save money.

(2) Non-local -- free and unlimited if enough is built into the cost of the car or is available as an optional upgrade for cars where it is not built into the car price (e.g. Model 3). The proposed method (allowance + pay-as-you-go) is a good option for those who prefer to pay this way..

As to the adequacy of the 1000-mile allowance -- that is not enough for one trip to visit my family over Christmas. That trip is a bit over 800 miles one way, in cold weather, and mostly at Interstate highway speeds.


High Plains Drifter | 8 novembre 2016

I see this as another revenue stream and possibly a profitable year for Tesla.

jordanrichard | 8 novembre 2016

Ok if people want to keep throwing around the "local" verbiage, then define "local".

tes-s | 8 novembre 2016

@cquail - I think you could do it for a couple hundred dollars.

SamO | 8 novembre 2016


Question: can a local use a Supercharger if they pay per kWh?

What if they buy the "free for life" option?

What if they live in an apartment and don't have charging at work.


SUN 2 DRV | 8 novembre 2016

"making the Supercharger system, including its expansion, financially self-supporting"

I think this is a major value...

Up to this point only TESLA had an incentive to expand the Supercharger network.

Once they make the Supercharger pricing model financially self-supporting, then there are incentives for third parties to help expand the Supercharger network. Superchargers may then appear in locations that Tesla wouldn't have funded themselves, and Superchargers might be combined with other innovative services and amenities in ways that Tesla hasn't funded on their own yet.

FREE is a concept that simply distorts business models, and is NEVER sustainable. I'm very glad they're removing this artificial distortion and predict that the Supercharger network will blossom and grow because of it.

jordanrichard | 8 novembre 2016

SamO, I am going to guess that was sarcasm to add to my sarcastic question.

High Plains Drifter | 8 novembre 2016

Did Tesla borrow this business strategy from Freedom Pop?

SamO | 8 novembre 2016

I love you @jr.

That question is pointed at people who insist Tesla did this because of locals.


TaoJones | 8 novembre 2016

It means about $1500/year if you're non-garaged and rely upon SCs exclusively with a moderate commute.

In practical use, actual consumption is higher than rated. A couple of conference calls with the AC on and you'll see 2 mi/kW instead of 3.5 mi/kW.

TaoJones | 8 novembre 2016

And once again for the slow, Tesla has always encouraged the non-garaged to use SCs if they have no charging options at home or at the office.

The unwarranted persecution of the mythical "locals" is beyond tedious.

brando | 8 novembre 2016

As I remember the strategy of the SuperChargers.

Good public relations, building infrastructure without government help and gorilla marketing for free. Customers got free (pre-paid) long distance travel.

How would this work? Land could be bought by Tesla and become an asset. Owners of land might give Tesla space in order to get Tesla owners to stop at/near their business (affluent owners). SuperChargers to be solar powered and might have excess electricity to sell.

Now some speculation. SuperChargers have batteries to charge Model S/X and these battery are of course storage. Originally SuperCharger stations were to be solar powered. And useage was expected to be mostly Friday (people topping off going from work on the way out of town) Saturday topping off, Sunday (on the way home, if needed/convenient) and Monday thru Thursday very light usage. Could they also "buy" power at night and store?

Now it might appear to be genius to wait for SolarCity acquisition before adding solar panels to SuperCharger stations. Could these stations also supply Utility companies as a peaker plant type supplier of electricity? How much room for solar panels? Well, I guess my point is there maybe opportunities for additional revenue from Tesla SuperCharger division. Other auto makers might want to buy into the SuperCharger Network. And perhap not all the money has to come from car charging.

Tesla now has over 3 years (how many cars? 160,000?) of data, so they can figure it out. I'm sure I'm not the only one to think about these opportunities. Interesting times.

martin | 8 novembre 2016

I agree fully with Sun 2 DRV:
Offering a Service for Free never was a valid business model in the long run. Tesla had to do it to prove to the world that long range electric driving was viable if done right. And the succeeded beyond the competition's worst nightmares.
Now Tesla has reached a market penetration that makes a profitable Super Charger Network possible with the rollout of the Model 3. so to me it is only logical to switch from a paid up front supercharging model to a pay per use one. I wish they'd change to a pay per charge policy but apparently doing that would raise legal issues (utility status?).
If Tesla can prove to the world now that charging EVs can be a profitable business by itself then others might jump onto the band wagon.
The next step will be transforming the SC network to a mostly solar powered network to invalidate the strongest argument against widespread EV use, namely that EVs don't make sense if the power comes from coal or nuclear

inconel | 8 novembre 2016

The new pay-per-use plan will also make it easier to turn on vehicle-to-grid or V2G.
It is possible that new vehicles will have this ability while older vehicles with free lifetime won't...

bgbythsea | 8 novembre 2016

No lifetime buy-in=more affordable cars; pay to charge=additional revenue; grandfathered existing life of car free charging=early adopter customer appreciation. Making this change was a no-brainer. The free model seemed too good to be true. Now if we all survive this election..........

martin | 8 novembre 2016

Charging never really es free, just a flatrate for the life of the car paid up front

Chunky Jr. | 9 novembre 2016

I'd say "local" is charging within 25 miles of home and using that same charger multiple times in a month. It's not just proximity, but also frequency.

jordanrichard | 9 novembre 2016

Chunky Jr., Tesla can already tell the frequency that one uses a particular SC and if they that it was excessive, they would have reached out to that owner.

You are still going to have a problem with the mile radius. The assumption is that the person using a SC that is 10 miles form their house, is on their way home. Perhaps they are passing through, on their way to a distant location?

My point is there are several scenarios where using a SC that is "local" would be legitimate usages.

milesbb | 10 novembre 2016

Starting 1/1/2017 legitimate Super Charger usage is any time someone is willing to pay Tesla a premium over local power rates to use it to charge a Tesla. Every person that super charges has a different reason, pay per use eliminates the poor reasons. Stop the finger pointing, problem solved. Lets worry about the folks that don't move their cars after charging is complete.

steve.roach | 10 novembre 2016

@High Plains Drifter & @mp1156,

Wouldn't it make more sense for them to go in to business with stores like WAWA and Sheets to put a SC the next isle over from a gas pump?

instead of building out all that infrastructure?

jordanrichard | 10 novembre 2016

steve.roach, Tesla has already set up or is still in talks with Sheetz to place SC at their gas stations. However, they will not be placed "next isle over" from the gas pumps. I can almost guarantee you, no local codes would allow such a high voltage/amperage device near an area with gas fumes. They would have to be placed as far as possible from the pumps.

Haggy | 10 novembre 2016

"This is a price increase, since Tesla had already bundled in the cost of the supercharger hardware, fractional cost of the SC network, and anticipated electricity cost into the purchase price of every car equipment with SC hardware"

It's a price increase if you want to acknowledge that it wasn't free to begin with and was part of what we paid for. The price is going up by making a standard feature optional. Or you could say that it was free up until now, and people will start to pay for it, so it isn't a price increase rather than the end of a free add-on. I'd go for the first one, but it's a moot point. You pay what you pay and you get what you get. Tesla could have increased the price for everybody and still called supercharging "free." They could have increased the price for everybody by the average amount they expect to get from selling the package, in which case it could still be considered "free," the price increase would be more modest, and Tesla would get the same revenue. But Tesla's solution stops one group that rarely uses the network from subsidizing another group, and stops the other group from overusing the superchargers unless they want to pay for it, which will eliminate those who have an easy way to charge without the network but choose to take advantage of it to save a small amount of money. Either way, it seems fair. Tesla could have decided to leave the price as is, and lower the price of the car without buying the package. But it comes down to supply and demand.

tmaz | 11 novembre 2016

Wonder how many model 3 cancellations we are going to see from all the tightass people out here who don't want to pay a couple bucks to charge up.

Haggy | 12 novembre 2016

Model 3 reservation holders have no idea what it will cost for a battery size increase, or for a premium stereo or AWD or anything else. The same is true for charging. So it might turn out to be more or less than they expected when all factors are put together. We simply don't know.

I think the rate at which people cancel because of this will be as high as the rate at which people cancel their newspaper subscription because the paper endorsed Hillary. People say they will but I doubt nearly so many actually do.

High Plains Drifter | 14 novembre 2016

Is Elon only interested in retaining MOST of his current customer base? Have sales increased to the point that "MOST" will allow the company to grow and expand?

tes-s | 14 novembre 2016

Yes, Tesla may lose part of the customer base to the other car manufacturers that continue to include free fuel for the life of the car. I think that is a risk they are willing to take.

AIA304 | 14 novembre 2016

How much does it cost Tesla for energy consumed at Supercharger stations per year ?

Don't know power cost, but do know, MTV SC location has consumed over 100 megawatts since Nov of 2015. Check the meter each time there.

Also had two cable fault errors while at said site over this weekend. Called Tesla and reported, cable wasn't any hotter than HPWC cable. Although looking at the two silver female pins, ridges inside charging cable was darkened.

Regarding the free SC charging, spoke with a person at same SC site sometime ago, and he was a driver for hire. He stated that particular MS gets charged sometimes 2-4 times a day. Tesla might consider looking at how the telephony group charges for calls on a measured business line. It's based on distance.

I've used "local" SC's about a dozen times. The Tesla for hire business probably used that in less than a week....

AoneOne | 14 novembre 2016

Example of CHAdeMO DCFC at a Sheetz. Roughly 90 ft from charger to gas pumps.,-76.8229532,27m/data=!3m1!1e3

kevin | 16 novembre 2016

I think folks are doing the math wrong on the Supercharger credit. Tesla says that 400 kWh is about 1,000 miles. I see people dividing the two and concluding that Tesla bases the 1,000 mile estimate on 400 Wh / mile, and saying that Tesla is being conservative and that the way real people drive, it's more like 1,200 miles.

I think this is a mistake because 400 kWh out of the charger is not the same thing as 400 kWh in the car. There are losses. When I charge at home, my electric utility doesn't charge me by what goes into the charger. I daresay Tesla Superchargers don't even know now much a battery is charged, just how much energy they pump out.

If the charging efficiency were 82% (a number I saw at, then the energy to the car would be 328kWh. That's a much more reasonable number for 1,000 of driving under normal conditions.

murphyS90D | 16 novembre 2016

I just finished charging my car (240V/40A) from 85 RM (30%) to 230 RM (80%). The car reported 42 kWh. The meter reported 45.13 kWh. (42/45.13)*100 = 93% efficiency.

400 kWh / 45.13 kWh * 145 miles = 1285 miles

Rocky_H | 16 novembre 2016

@kevin, I think it's actually correct.

Quote: " I daresay Tesla Superchargers don't even know now much a battery is charged, just how much energy they pump out."

I don't know if they have the metering broken down to get readings per pedestal, though to have that granularity of data from that end. Also, some of the Superchargers are not even internet connected. The car itself has the internet connection and does the authorization and probably metering. So the usage of the 400kwhs is probably going to be measured, reported, and deducted from someone's account from the car side, not the Supercharger pedestal side.

Haggy | 16 novembre 2016

Tesla never said it would be the amount of energy out of the charger, and it's reasonable to expect that amount to be the amount that goes into the car. That's the only information that the car even gives you, and presumably Tesla will give you a way to keep track of all of this. It wouldn't make sense for the car to show that you got one amount and for Tesla to claim that even though you didn't get more than that amount, it cost them more than that amount to give you that amount so they are charging you for more than that amount.

Bighorn | 16 novembre 2016

I'm going to say the car will get 400kWh added at the screen level.

tom168 | 16 novembre 2016

I have reserved a Model 3 and I am considering to purchase an S instead of the "3" next year. The Super Charger limit factor is not in my calculations. I don't mind to pay for charging during long distance driving (a couple of times each year). My electric bill is close to zero because of my home solar installation.

Tesla has to spend money in setting up the infrastructure (and maintain) to track and charge the users on the consumed electricity. Is this worth it? I would rather have Tesla spend the money setting up more service centers!!!

High Plains Drifter | 21 novembre 2016

Will the new supercharger policy lead to contraction in the supercharger network? One of the effects of the new proposed supercharger limit will be less traffic. Businesses that host super charger sites may complain that Tesla altered the business model that made hosting a super charger site attractive. These businesses may want to opt out of the supercharger program or at least get a portion of the new revenue source..